Jump to content

AR-11 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly ...


Pete B

Recommended Posts

Your last post was trolling, trying to lay the bait, obviously, and now your deliberately insulting.

I have no interest in engaging in any sort of debate with you.

I asked you to start your own thread rather than try to bait a war here, why don't you do it?

Pete B.

>

>Newton's laws of motion are not theories, they have been

>demonstrated so many times by so many people for so long that

>they are accepted by scientists and engineers universally as

>facts. That's why they are called laws. Learn them and how

>to apply them and they will be your friends. Ignore them,

>challenge them, fight them and you will lose every single

>time. Don't argue with me, I didn't discover them, argue with

>Sir Isaac...only under the circumstances, you will have to

>meet him at a seance. If you don't like it, find some other

>universe to live in, one where they don't apply. In this one,

>there is no escaping them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Pete - I think I'm as weary of it as you are. Let's give-up.

>I took a good amount of time to try to answer your last questions, now you have new ones, partly based on misinterpreting what I said.<

I didn't mean to.

>Your question about crossover Q for example, there are many papers in the AES about crossover design and yes Q is one design parameter concerning 2nd order filters.<

Yes, I know - the internet is full of references in total agreement. And raising Q would cause a bump. You had said you thought a bump had been introduced, that's why I focused on Q.

>Your questioning many different aspects of loudspeaker design I just can't cover all of them.<

Well, okay. I can hardly expect you to teach a full course.

I didn't really mean to be questioning many aspects of loudspeaker design. It wasn't until today, when I was doing something else, that I realized that what I really wanted was for you to show me how to create a bump in frequency response above Fc with a Q of .7 using the design elements AR did. Without raising Q or changing the inductor, I can't figure-out how anyone could do that accidently or on purpose.

I've spent a tremendous, really tremendous, amount of time trying to understand one of the design-problems you listed for an AR-11.

>The 200003 woofer used in the AR-11 has a much lower moving mass than the later AR-3a type woofer, 68 g as compared to ~105g. This was a major mistake in my opinion, the low Fc is what made the AR-3a have deep extension. I was in fact surprised to find this change as it was key to their performance. It was done to make them more efficient(loud) and with more 50-60 Hz thumping bass for mass market appeal.<

I doubted that motive so greatly I wanted to understand where the problem came from - now I'm finally understanding that you didn't actually find this problem.

Leaving us here:

>Let me say that what I wrote is based on my engineering judgement, my particular system did not have a serious 50 to 60 Hz bump, it was better than most due to the loose suspension, but based on the engineering, and what others have stated such as Frank, this is how I see it by reading the design. Take it for what it's worth.<

Let me quote you back to you again so there will be no misunderstanding caused by my misinterpretation:

>I find that lay-experts, not you by the way, come to these boards wanting their unresearched, and usually untested in a controlled environment, beliefs validated by "experts" and attack when they are not. There's also a thing called group think, the insecure group has common beliefs or a culture - well I think that's right, Joe says it's right, Mike says it's right, Jack says it's right, it must be right how could we all be wrong? They are often wrong.<

I'm sensitive to the fact that I often "push your buttons" when I don't mean to; but unless I missed some "research," or "tests in a controlled environment," or I don't understand the technical difference between "Joe and Mike and Jack" and "others have stated such as Frank" where group-think is concerned, I have to conclude that everyone else here has just been insulted. Did you mean to be insulting by holding our feet to the fire while claiming professional immunity? Or are the rest of us simply held to a higher standard of proof; which, in and of itself, would be insulting.

I sincerely appreciate, really, sincerely, the time you've spent with me on this subject, but I don't see any point in your wasting time trying to explain this to me.

I was trying to understand how you could have come to the conclusion that AR purposefully introduced a hump in frequency response in order to sell speakers and I wanted to understand your statement about using high Q crossovers in order to make them loud.

Ultimately, I neither experience the phenomena, nor understand the possible mechanics, of either.

Perhaps a few good books will teach me enough about baffle-step problems that I'll "see the light," but I'm beginning to doubt I'll ever see this particular light.

Thanks again for your investment in time.

Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow, loudspeaker design became ossified IMO probably around the 90s. Fifty years ago, high quality amplifiers were very expensive, large, and active crossover networks and equalizers for consumer use were virtually unavailable. Today the situation is completely opposite. This not only gives designers the opportunity to try very different designs but hobbyists to revisit old designs replacing their passive crossovers with active ones and equalizers including digital types and provide separate amplifiers for each driver. Many are experimenting with the Sonic Impact T-Amp (and its competitors) which provides about 10 to 15 wpc for $30 + power supply. Some have compared its performance to the best analog amplifiers available. Digital controls will allow many possible alternatives to be tried quickly and easily and will be repeatable with great precision. Use of much higher order crossover networks such as 24 db/octave slopes and dealing with room resonances especially at bass frequencies can also improve performance considerably. The passive crossover could one day be regarded as an inefficient dinosaur, a relic of an early time and technology. I'll bet speakers like AR3a would have new life breathed into them showing performance capabilities beyond anything we've ever seen from them before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bret, you suggest (incorrectly) that I did not research my statements:

>I'm sensitive to the fact that I often "push your buttons"

>when I don't mean to; but unless I missed some "research," or

>"tests in a controlled environment," or I don't understand the

>technical difference between "Joe and Mike and Jack" and

>"others have stated such as Frank" where group-think is

>concerned, I have to conclude that everyone else here has just

>been insulted. Did you mean to be insulting by holding our

>feet to the fire while claiming professional immunity? Or are

>the rest of us simply held to a higher standard of proof;

>which, in and of itself, would be insulting.

>

Yes, Bret you missed some research when I even reported most of it here. How do you not notice my analysis, measurement, simuation, and controlled listening. Bret you obviously are trying to spin this, ignoring the facts, or perhaps you're deliberately trying to "push my buttons" - your own words. Which would make your comments trolling for a war as I see it.

Someone stated that many here love their speakers, and love makes people want to fight to defend their opinions and object of affection. I did not expect this but it seems to be true for several here and make rational discussion difficult.

Pete B.

>Hey Pete - I think I'm as weary of it as you are. Let's

>give-up.

>

>>I took a good amount of time to try to answer your last

>questions, now you have new ones, partly based on

>misinterpreting what I said.<

>

>I didn't mean to.

>

>>Your question about crossover Q for example, there are many

>papers in the AES about crossover design and yes Q is one

>design parameter concerning 2nd order filters.<

>

>Yes, I know - the internet is full of references in total

>agreement. And raising Q would cause a bump. You had said

>you thought a bump had been introduced, that's why I focused

>on Q.

>

>>Your questioning many different aspects of loudspeaker design

>I just can't cover all of them.<

>

>Well, okay. I can hardly expect you to teach a full course.

>

>I didn't really mean to be questioning many aspects of

>loudspeaker design. It wasn't until today, when I was doing

>something else, that I realized that what I really wanted was

>for you to show me how to create a bump in frequency response

>above Fc with a Q of .7 using the design elements AR did.

>Without raising Q or changing the inductor, I can't figure-out

>how anyone could do that accidently or on purpose.

>

>I've spent a tremendous, really tremendous, amount of time

>trying to understand one of the design-problems you listed for

>an AR-11.

>

>>The 200003 woofer used in the AR-11 has a much lower moving

>mass than the later AR-3a type woofer, 68 g as compared to

>~105g. This was a major mistake in my opinion, the low Fc is

>what made the AR-3a have deep extension. I was in fact

>surprised to find this change as it was key to their

>performance. It was done to make them more efficient(loud) and

>with more 50-60 Hz thumping bass for mass market appeal.<

>

>I doubted that motive so greatly I wanted to understand where

>the problem came from - now I'm finally understanding that you

>didn't actually find this problem.

>

>Leaving us here:

>

>>Let me say that what I wrote is based on my engineering

>judgement, my particular system did not have a serious 50 to

>60 Hz bump, it was better than most due to the loose

>suspension, but based on the engineering, and what others have

>stated such as Frank, this is how I see it by reading the

>design. Take it for what it's worth.<

>

>Let me quote you back to you again so there will be no

>misunderstanding caused by my misinterpretation:

>

>>I find that lay-experts, not you by the way, come to these

>boards wanting their unresearched, and usually untested in a

>controlled environment, beliefs validated by "experts" and

>attack when they are not. There's also a thing called group

>think, the insecure group has common beliefs or a culture -

>well I think that's right, Joe says it's right, Mike says it's

>right, Jack says it's right, it must be right how could we all

>be wrong? They are often wrong.<

>

>I'm sensitive to the fact that I often "push your buttons"

>when I don't mean to; but unless I missed some "research," or

>"tests in a controlled environment," or I don't understand the

>technical difference between "Joe and Mike and Jack" and

>"others have stated such as Frank" where group-think is

>concerned, I have to conclude that everyone else here has just

>been insulted. Did you mean to be insulting by holding our

>feet to the fire while claiming professional immunity? Or are

>the rest of us simply held to a higher standard of proof;

>which, in and of itself, would be insulting.

>

>I sincerely appreciate, really, sincerely, the time you've

>spent with me on this subject, but I don't see any point in

>your wasting time trying to explain this to me.

>

>I was trying to understand how you could have come to the

>conclusion that AR purposefully introduced a hump in frequency

>response in order to sell speakers and I wanted to understand

>your statement about using high Q crossovers in order to make

>them loud.

>

>Ultimately, I neither experience the phenomena, nor understand

>the possible mechanics, of either.

>

>Perhaps a few good books will teach me enough about

>baffle-step problems that I'll "see the light," but I'm

>beginning to doubt I'll ever see this particular light.

>

>Thanks again for your investment in time.

>

>Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The 200003 woofer used in the AR-11 has a much lower moving

>mass than the later AR-3a type woofer, 68 g as compared to

>~105g. This was a major mistake in my opinion, the low Fc is

>what made the AR-3a have deep extension. I was in fact

>surprised to find this change as it was key to their

>performance. >

>Pete B.

Using a scale I weighed the moving mass (voice coil + spider + cone) of:

two 3a ceramic woofers labelled 1970

two 10 Pi ceramic woofers labelled 1975

two 11 ceramic woofers labelled 1977

They all weighed exactly the same (about 70 g). I never measured 105g.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your data, how would you explain Ken's data then?

Do you think the woofers were modified or repaired incorrectly?

Wouldn't Ken have access to the original design parameters and known something was off?

It is hard to draw firm conclusions without a larger sample size. However, there are numerous reports of them sounding different, and Ken's data supporting the theory that the mass changed.

Pete B.

>>The 200003 woofer used in the AR-11 has a much lower

>moving

>>mass than the later AR-3a type woofer, 68 g as compared

>to

>>~105g. This was a major mistake in my opinion, the low Fc

>is

>>what made the AR-3a have deep extension. I was in fact

>>surprised to find this change as it was key to their

>>performance. >

>>Pete B.

>

> Using a scale I weighed the moving mass (voice coil +

>spider + cone)of:

> two 3a ceramic woofers labelled 1970

> two 10 Pi ceramic woofers labelled 1975

> two 11 ceramic woofers labelled 1977

> They all weighed exactly the same (about 70 g). I never

>measured 105g.

>

> Aquila

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...